The globalization has strengthened the interdependence between the different states in matters of security and defense; threats respond to a local and/or international actuations that have global effects never before seen. Nowadays there are more threats: the issue of the failed states, the war in network, international terrorism, weapons and nuclear proliferation, uncontrolled immigration… The media approaches events and other realities and influences to the politicians who represent them. As Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote in the National Military Strategy 2015 “We now face multiple, simultaneous security challenges from traditional state actors and trans-regional networks of sub-state groups-all taking advantage of rapid technological change. Future conflicts will come more rapidly, last longer, and take place on a much more technically challenging battlefield”).

Intelligence obeys due to security and defense needs and responds by analyzing and managing information and knowledge. Due to the expanded and increasingly rapid globalization that challenges the diverse and latent security deficiencies -such as those presented in the recent disaster at the Belgium airport and metro-, the structure and the performance of national and international intelligence is also subject to question. A new paradigm has appeared and is known today as Intelligence Community, which responds to the need for proactive action and a holistic approach (a wider and contextual optical), where the academic experts bear a referential job in the analysis and study of the current reality: “consists of an integrated system by relevant agencies and organizations in such matters that serve to the strategic objectives of the government through a coordinated work from of top-level structure that promotes and ensures a relational system and the necessary connectivity (…) to optimize results”.

In 1999, in the Strategic Concept of the Atlantic Alliance it was announced an approach due to a need for an adequate and joint response to an increasingly complex and interdependent world; after the attack of September 11, Henry Kiesinger announce that even the hegemon country (United States) could not face threats alone, and that transcend the domestic peace and stability. Nowadays, it becomes more frequent in forums about Security and Defense the term of cooperation in the exchange of information and intelligence.

In Spain, it is important to highlight the expansion and innovation in Intelligence after the unfortunate 11M. However, despite this incident and that multiplied in other countries, there is no structure or an appropriate action to obey the idea of Intelligence Community since the date of 2002, when was created the Law 11/2002 of May 6 (with which the Government Delegate Committee for intelligence, the National Intelligence and Counterintelligence Authority and the National Cryptologic Centre were created). It is seen, therefore, a lack of a modern response on Security and Defense issues to face the threats of nowadays and the near future.

Instead, the United States did find an Intelligence Community changing and adapted to current needs: it is formed by a central agency (CIA) connected to various agencies (17) coordinated institutionally which obey the needs of the Central Intelligence Director; in response to what happened in the 11S, for example, a reflection was created, both civil and military and government, and it was promoted a new framework that got involved the entire nation that ended on July 16, 2002 in the National Security Strategy, signed by the President; It was subsequently, in 2014, when a National Intelligence Strategy was impulsed too. The US is already developing and updating a company of Intelligence and Defense (Defense Intelligence Enterprise), composed by intelligence, counterintelligence, and security components of the Department of Defense, Commanders, Military Departments and other departments, as well as those organizations under the authority, direction and control of the Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.

However, due to the necessity of create and develop this new paradigm of Intelligence, it is also important to note the obstacles that also appears with this the changing global reality:

The biggest challenge is, undoubtedly, the management of information; it is getting increasingly difficult to obtain information due to the greater multiplication of sources, constantly updated and with dubious credibility due to the immediacy. The Intelligence requires an elaborate process of analysis and a contrast evaluation facing a reality that is displayed fleetingly and from multiple channels.

There are other challenges and risks in the field, especially in terrorism; it is becoming more necessary to resort to a more traditional format with closer Intelligence application in order to get access to information from terrorist circles, increasingly less visible and hidden in allowable channels (deep web, new technologies …) -as we have seen in the security debate between the FBI and Apple to resolve the killing of San Bernardino-.

However, one of the biggest obstacles for the promotion of a better response rates is the assurance that the agencies and institutions responsible for the analysis and evaluation of risks and threats are in direct relation to the highest levels of decision, dependent on the head of Government and whether the Prime Minister, under the leadership of a minister responsible of the Intelligence area and high-ranking officials from departments directly related to the areas of security and Intelligence to ensure the best response to the needs of the nation and not only to the political ones. Therefore, the internal structure of the intelligence must be constructed in order to avoid the interruption of the information flow, without intermediaries or other smaller players.

Also is needed an uniformity of concepts and terminologies subject to the culture of Intelligence that differentiate criteria prosecution and response -for example, the global definition of terrorism, which caused many frictions among countries due to the confusing meaning, subjected to their interests or the fashions of the moment-.

It is important to remember that some legislations difficult actions to prevent threats because they are not updated to the new challenges, subject to more reactive attitudes –as we saw during the search for Abdeslam in Belgium, where security forces often could not act in time-.

In conclusion, it becomes clear that, to overcome the challenges and obstacles that the new paradigm of Intelligence faces, it is necessary to restructure the stage and action methodology to bring it to a lower and horizontal level to promote cooperation and communication. I propose different reform measures:

To recover more traditional formats to get a first-hand information from secret and terrorist cells and enter into their hidden and private networks; it is also important to collaborate and exchange information between agencies of different countries which operate in common scenarios and with similar interests (ex. Europe) by the creation, for example, of a new and collaborative body –efficient and secure- to facilitate responses and make them faster and more efficient (for example, to detect the identities of alleged threats between different population-flows); the participation of academic experts in the research, analysis and contrast of information related to the Intelligence needs also would reduces the effort and the diversification of seeking and obtaining, creating also different agencies and bodies, widely expanded in UK or the United States; Intelligence structure should promote direct communication with the head of Government and the bodies responsible for the decision-making; it is also essential adapt the legislation and the actions of the security forces to promote prevention attitudes more than reaction ones. Finally, it would be essential to promote, through a national and international level, the culture of Intelligence and Security, necessary for the expansion of verified concepts and realities that we find globally and in constantly change.

MARTA Gª OUTÓN

[1] David Shedd, “Intelligence and National Defense: Challenges the U.S. Intelligence community must overcome to enable effective military operations”, U.S MILITARY STRENGTH, 2016.